Page 15 of 68 FirstFirst ... 513141516172565 ... LastLast
Results 141 to 150 of 671

Thread: US troops coming home? Obama to say on Wednesday

  1. #141
    Gradualist

    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Last Seen
    09-25-17 @ 12:48 PM
    Lean
    Socialist
    Posts
    34,949
    Blog Entries
    6

    Re: President Obama To Announce Details of Afghanistan Strategy On Wednesday

    Quote Originally Posted by ptif219 View Post
    So 900 dead under Obama leadership is not a disaster?
    Never stated that or even leaned on stating that.
    Yes i do see that as a disaster, and no way we are going to win this war or accomplish much than leave a corrupt, "democratic" regime behind.

    Obama never mentioned winning in his speech.
    Well were not going to be able to win...

    I see this more as a political gimmick than a military plan.
    I agree. But we should of never increased troops their in the first place.


    If anything Obama should be putting more on the Pakistan border.
    And do what? With these troops? Learn from history. Increasing troops in this region has never worked before.


  2. #142
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    melbourne florida
    Last Seen
    09-24-15 @ 12:15 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    13,156

    Re: President Obama To Announce Details of Afghanistan Strategy On Wednesday

    Quote Originally Posted by TheDemSocialist View Post
    Never stated that or even leaned on stating that.
    Yes i do see that as a disaster, and no way we are going to win this war or accomplish much than leave a corrupt, "democratic" regime behind.


    Well were not going to be able to win...


    I agree. But we should of never increased troops their in the first place.




    And do what? With these troops? Learn from history. Increasing troops in this region has never worked before.
    Funny thing is that is the same thing Durbin and Reid said about Iraq

  3. #143
    Educator

    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Last Seen
    07-08-11 @ 01:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    1,235

    Re: President Obama To Announce Details of Afghanistan Strategy On Wednesday

    We've challenged history demsocialist. We have seen great progress in Afghanistan.

  4. #144
    Sage
    Boo Radley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Last Seen
    11-22-17 @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    36,858

    Re: President Obama To Announce Details of Afghanistan Strategy On Wednesday

    Quote Originally Posted by ptif219 View Post
    So 900 dead under Obama leadership is not a disaster? Obama never mentioned winning in his speech. I see this more as a political gimmick than a military plan.

    If anything Obama should be putting more on the Pakistan border.
    Winning what?

    AUSTAN GOOLSBEE: I think the world vests too much power, certainly in the president, probably in Washington in general for its influence on the economy, because most all of the economy has nothing to do with the government.

  5. #145
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:50 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,104

    Re: President Obama To Announce Details of Afghanistan Strategy On Wednesday

    Quote Originally Posted by American View Post
    Talking about it publicly is stupid.
    It's only stupid if your goal is to win the war and ensure American security. If your goal is to try to get a bump in political popularity, then talking about it (and making the decision that he did) is precisely the correct thing to do.

  6. #146
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:50 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,104

    Re: President Obama To Announce Details of Afghanistan Strategy On Wednesday

    Quote Originally Posted by Gargantuan View Post
    We've challenged history demsocialist. We have seen great progress in Afghanistan.
    that is correct - though it's not been nearly as reported on, we have seen amazing turn-arounds in Afghanistan. I sincerely hope that we are able to front-load out the support troop type units and replace them with contractors in order to protect those gains.

  7. #147
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:50 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,104

    Re: President Obama To Announce Details of Afghanistan Strategy On Wednesday

    Quote Originally Posted by Boo Radley View Post
    Winning what?

    hey folks, remember all those 2004/2006 protestations on the part of the left that they weren't anti-WoT, that they weren't just reflexively anti-US Security or Anti-War, or any of that because they were for the "right war" in Afghanistan?


    yeah. all that? just words.

  8. #148
    Educator

    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Last Seen
    07-08-11 @ 01:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    1,235

    Re: President Obama To Announce Details of Afghanistan Strategy On Wednesday

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    that is correct - though it's not been nearly as reported on, we have seen amazing turn-arounds in Afghanistan. I sincerely hope that we are able to front-load out the support troop type units and replace them with contractors in order to protect those gains.
    Mercs are fine with me. As long as they aren't fighting under an American banner I'll take em.

    That said, we need to get rid of the troops that are serving in nation building capacity. We don't need to build afghani bridges and railroads and airports and increase their GDP growth. The number can be significantly dropped (from the current 100k) to around 50k, and we can protect the gains, train afghan forces, and mount an offensive to take control of border regions, which the Taliban for the most part control the whole Pakistani border.

    And your last post I agree with totally. Where are all the other liberals now who said Iraq was stupid and that we belong in Afghanistan? No idea. Really just partisanship I guess. These are my liberal beliefs that we can finish the job with a smaller number of troops and take care of what needs to be done without risking security, and get out by the end of 2012 or 2013.
    Last edited by Gargantuan; 06-23-11 at 04:58 AM.

  9. #149
    Sage
    cpwill's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    USofA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:50 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    57,104

    Re: President Obama To Announce Details of Afghanistan Strategy On Wednesday

    Quote Originally Posted by Gargantuan View Post
    Mercs are fine with me. As long as they aren't fighting under an American banner I'll take em.
    I was thinking more along the lines of the support troops that they are talking about pulling out first. It doesn't take a uniformed military member to pull a crate of supplies off a plane or a truck.

    though towards the end of the surge in Iraq we did see some payoff with civilian-cop PTT teams; not sure how strong of a role they would have to play in more rural Afghanistan.

    That said, we need to get rid of the troops that are serving in nation building capacity. We don't need to build afghani bridges and railroads and airports and increase their GDP growth.
    yes...and no... if we want them to be able to supply themselves with security, then they also need to be able to pay for their security, on top of having the ability to get a significant enough percentage of the population to "buy in" to the new government. all that comes after establishing

    The number can be significantly dropped (from the current 100k) to around 50k, and we can protect the gains, train afghan forces, and mount an offensive to take control of border regions, which the Taliban for the most part control the whole Pakistani border.
    how? you need a larger number to train afghans than just training or school teams - you need co-located units capable of providing security until the Afghans can left-seat-right-seat. you can't control the border regions unless you inundate it with small units capable of interacting with the locals and providing constant security and denial. I just don't see 50K being sufficient for holding what we've gained, much less offense. Counterinsurgency is manpower intensive.

    And your last post I agree with totally. Where are all the other liberals now who said Iraq was stupid and that we belong in Afghanistan? No idea. Really just partisanship I guess.
    apparently so. The old paleo-Conservatives who used to oppose Iraq and Afghanistan used to tick me off no end because it felt like they were detracting from the effort, but at least they were principled when it came to standing up to their own side. I'm similarly disappointed with conservatives who have rushed to condemn the mission in Libya because it's a President with (D) after his name. American Foreign Policy should not be waged based on how it will help a particular political party in the next election.

    These are my liberal beliefs that we can finish the job with a smaller number of troops and take care of what needs to be done without risking security, and get out by the end of 2012 or 2013.
    out? no. they are nowhere near ready for us to be out. area-dependent we could probably be starting a general left-seat-right-seat campaign by then, but we would need to retain numbers and combined arms to guarantee security while doing so. you gotta crawl before you walk, and walk before you run; and the same is true of the Afghans.
    Last edited by cpwill; 06-23-11 at 05:18 AM.

  10. #150
    Educator

    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Last Seen
    07-08-11 @ 01:37 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    1,235

    Re: President Obama To Announce Details of Afghanistan Strategy On Wednesday

    Quote Originally Posted by cpwill View Post
    I was thinking more along the lines of the support troops that they are talking about pulling out first. It doesn't take a uniformed military member to pull a crate of supplies off a plane or a truck.

    though towards the end of the surge in Iraq we did see some payoff with civilian-cop PTT teams; not sure how strong of a role they would have to play in more rural Afghanistan.
    Sure, but I also think that pulling supplies off of a truck can be dangerous in Afghanistan. I have no real hands on military experience, but I think that PMCs should be the ones there, not civilian volunteers. Those PMCs have a hell of a lot of training, probably more than the average infantryman over there tenfold.

    As for the PTTs, I do think great benefit was seen in Iraq, but that was more with actually being hands on, training them in police stations on logistics, etc. I don't think that would really work in Afghanistan as you said simply because I doubt a "cop" over there is anything more than another uneducated, untrained, Afghani person.

    yes...and no... if we want them to be able to supply themselves with security, then they also need to be able to pay for their security, on top of having the ability to get a significant enough percentage of the population to "buy in" to the new government. all that comes after establishing
    Good point. I really can't argue that... especially the buy in to the new government part. But still though, we're talking about one of the poorest nations in the world, I mean how long do we have to risk American lives and spend our money to get them on their feet?

    how? you need a larger number to train afghans than just training or school teams - you need co-located units capable of providing security until the Afghans can left-seat-right-seat. you can't control the border regions unless you inundate it with small units capable of interacting with the locals and providing constant security and denial. I just don't see 50K being sufficient for holding what we've gained, much less offense. Counterinsurgency is manpower intensive.
    Are they really that bad that they can't even left seat once? With all the years that we've been there that just cannot be true. I've had even the dumbest, clumsiest new agents take the right seat within a month... can it really, really, be that bad with these Afghanis? I just don't see how a left/right seat policy cannot be already done over there. They have the most powerful nation in the world supplying and training them. What's wrong with a policy of focusing troops in the border regions, along with leaving a minority behind in already gained zones. It's not just the 100,000 US troops. We have Italians and Germans over there in gigantic numbers. Brits I believe have drawn down significantly.
    apparently so. The old paleo-Conservatives who used to oppose Iraq and Afghanistan used to tick me off no end because it felt like they were detracting from the effort, but at least they were principled when it came to standing up to their own side. I'm similarly disappointed with conservatives who have rushed to condemn the mission in Libya because it's a President with (D) after his name. American Foreign Policy should not be waged based on how it will help a particular political party in the next election.
    Right. It's not just the tea party either. We're seeing that with the entire House. Senate republicans who tend to be more older and willing to stick to their guns aren't going for it though.

Page 15 of 68 FirstFirst ... 513141516172565 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •